Just finished reading a book about the effect of climate change in the Arctic Circle , mostly it discusses the way of life in that area.(Empire of Ice by Gretel Ehrlich) One of the many interesting points that came up is the fact that the Inuit measure distance in time not miles, so B is six hours away from A not 10 or 20 miles...That reminded me we, in the Italian Alps, did exactly the same.I still don't know now what distances we covered, I just know how long it takes to get there...By the way if you want a quick insight into why when you lose a language (Inuktitut in this case) you also lose a culture, this is a good book to read.Franco

In effect I have always dealt with trail distances this way - accurate mileage measurements being hard to come by, I read the map and estimate miles and translate to hours depending on whether it is on trail or off, how much elevation gain or loss, etc. I don't ever know the real mileage, but I'm usually accurate in terms of how long it will take me to get from one place to another.

The Sherpa people in Nepal are the same way. In general, they have no vehicles with meters, so they don't know what a mile is. If you ask them how many miles it is to the next village, they respond with something like "It's a full day of walk."

Of course, that leaves the Westerners kind of puzzled, because we don't know if that means ten miles or twenty miles.

My brother is a Neurologist and did basic research in pharmacology. For some South American native peoples the basic unit of time is the Cocada-the duration of effect of a Cocoa leaf with relations to altitude, distance and loads.Like a Starbucks minute these days I'd guess.

signs give distance by time in the Alps too
on 05/05/2012 22:28:34 MDT

In the Austrian Alps, I too was surprised to find that the yellow trail signs gave distances in terms of hours, and not in distance.

Sort of took me aback at first because the signs abbreviated "hour" with an 'h'. The German abbreviation should use an 's'. I guess that's another case of the global power and reach of english.

Like probably many before me, I at first was bothered by time-as-distance, but if you spend a bit of time hiking in the area you learn to calibrate their time estimates to your own pace.

Is the fact that I still think it's a gonzo approach some aspect of cultural lensing, the fact that I was educated as an engineer or ... am I just objectively right? :-)

I wonder if perhaps time-as-distance developed in areas and at times where accurate distance measurements weren't feasible? And it persists due to inertia and tradition.Indeed, there might be a sort of cultural preference at work in places too.

Re: signs give distance by time in the Alps too
on 05/06/2012 02:15:38 MDT

Hi Brian

Hum ... we normally see 'stadt' in Germany and Austria, but I will keep an eye out.

But referring back to my examples - I suggest the distance value is purely cosmetic. After all, who cares whether it is 2 km or 20 km? What I want to know is whether I can get there before dark: how many hours will it take me.

Although I regularly GIVE time estimates, I'll take the mileage on the maps and signs, please. My time estimate/actual may be a lot different than what some schmo puts on a sign, and I definitely use signage for orienteering purposes.

In southern California, the freeway system is a monster during rush hour peak times.

Example: how far is Disneyland from LAX?Typical answer is: right now it's at least a couple of hours, but after dinner probably 45 mins.

Back on the hiking trails, there is a popular book author, that posts trip reports in his hyper mileage speed, but his average readers are always getting stuck on the trail in the dark. Elevation miles are more demanding than flat trail miles. While he often brags that a summit only took 3 hrs, his typical readers get screwed with misleading info.

Also, for myself, in the early morning, I spend extra time getting ready, and taking sunrise photos and slow moving, whereas in the afternoon haze, I just want to hurry up and get done for the day. So my uphill in the morning is about 1.5 mph, and my downhill in the evening is about 3.5 mph.

On trail if I'm asking someone how far it is, or telling someone, I use distance. There have been many times when someone will tell me a spot is an hour and a half away and I show up there in 35 minutes. Some people might take all day to do 7 miles on moderate trail, while others do it in only a few hours. Driving on the other hand I always use time.

I would much prefer to be told/see miles not hours. I know what my speed is for given terrain/conditions, I certainly don't know what someone else's is- how would like you to run into Joe Grant and tell you it's just a couple of hours to the trailhead! :)

In New Zealand the common practice is to use time as the measure of distance between two points, and most signs will indicate time. DOC (Department of Conservation) Government organistation responsible for looking after National Parks etc. have more recently been putting distances on signs along with times, which gives you a good idea of what to expect of the track ahead (it is quite common to see the km equal the hours, and you know you are in for for a tough workout).

One reason would be that tracks and routes historically(outside the really popular track such as the "Great Walks") have never been measured accurately, and prior to GPS quite difficult to get a reasonable distance measure. And as Roger pointed out, most people just want to know if there is enough time to get to the next destination or not, or just how long is the suffering going to continue.

One thing with stated times in New Zealand to be aware of is if the track is close to a roadend and is suitable for family groups then walking time of a medium fitness party would be less than stated by a quarter to a third. Standard tramping tracks have times quoted that medium fitness parties would normally match. In more remote regions with minimal routes or straight wilderness, quoted times would match those of a fit experienced party but also would be somewhat variable due to conditions such as snow, mud, rain, wind, and most likely reason route finding.

Beating quoted times is considered a mildly entertaining diversion to the serious nature of tramping, and a method of getting one up on someone. ;-)

As a kid /teenager we did mostly day outings.Usually we started at 5-6 AM and arrived at destination around 11-12AM.A couple of walks needed a 4/4:30am start.For those I estimate the distance to be about 12km each way. Were we fast or slow ?Franco

Most people want to know how much time from point A to B for food, break, shelter setup.

However when asking a stranger or reading a sign, a time question is misleading.

It's accurate to find out the distance from a person, a sign or map, but also gathering info on the terrain conditions, then calculate your own time estimate based on what you know about your own endurance and speed (distance per hour)

In pre-trip planning I look at the mileage and I know that I hike at 2 miles per hour, with breaks, very consistently. Thus I can look at the day and use that to know either: - How long we'll be hiking to cover a specified part of the trail OR - How far we can go given a fixed (i.e. daylight) amount of time

When on the trail and we meet someone going the other direction and they ask a question like: "How far to the next water?" I'm much more likely to answer with "about an hour" than "two miles." If they questioned my response I'd translate it, but time seems to make the most sense when answering questions like that.

Strictly dependent on terrain, off trail or on trail, weather, how much I'm carrying, usually a combination of the two. That said, off trail in unfamiliar country has to be a time guesstimate, at best. All bets off then.

KevinHere is the problem...Your consistent 2 miles per hour may not work in a different area so you could end up a few hour short of the next water source or reasonable/legal place to camp.Above I asked the question if 12km in 8 hours is fast or slow...(that is less than 1 mile per hour)Now I will explain why it took me so long to do it...Take this walk.

Starting point the village at the top on the right. (1100m/3600')Down to the village below (1000m/3280') collect the rest of the gang (well 1 or two) . Down to (about 800m/2625' ) then to the right and then up to the peak on the right at the other side of the valley (2750m/9022')The last peak left to right . It appears to be the lowest but it is higher that the others.Lunch at the top (weather permitting) an hour or so of rest and then down. (about 4 hours to come down) And that is how it took us all that time...Now my cousin could do that about twice as fast bu he was an Olympic level athlete, unfortunately I am not...So shall we mark that trip 15 miles or 12 hours plus ?Franco